chanduv23
03-26 08:58 AM
I used jet last week... 1208$ great food and service.. and the inflight entertainment was awesome !:D
Can u define awsome :D:D:D some thing like hooters airline :D:D - take it easy, just kidding
Can u define awsome :D:D:D some thing like hooters airline :D:D - take it easy, just kidding
gcinterview
05-12 04:47 PM
I'm a new member on this forum and my case got transferred to MOUNT LAUREL, NJ office.
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
History:
My 485 was filed in NSC in July'2007.
I have 2 I-140 petitions, and dates are current(Eb2 India).
Code 3 FP done in Dec'2007 and Name check and FBI background checks cleared.
Case got transferred from NSC to local office in April'2009
After about 8 days of transfer to the local office I received Code 1 Finger print notices.
What does that mean? Any one had similar experiences?
Here is the message I got last month.
We transferred this I485 APPLICATION TO REGISTER PERMANENT RESIDENCE OR TO ADJUST STATUS to our MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location for processing because they now have jurisdiction over the case. We sent you a notice of this transfer. Please follow any instructions on this notice. You will be notified by mail when a decision is made, or if the office needs something from you. If you move while this case is pending, call customer service. We process cases in the order we receive them. You can use our processing dates to estimate when this case will be done. This case has been sent to our, MOUNT LAUREL, NJ location. Follow the link below to check processing dates. You can also receive automatic e-mail updates as we process your case. Just follow the link below to register.
Thanks for the link. Looks like I will have to get ready for an interview!!!!
mjdup
02-17 01:30 PM
Great job cataphract ! meeting in person helps a lot, I'm wishing MA volunteers step up and get motivated. Does red bull really work ;) just kidding, good luck.
gg_ny
08-21 09:20 AM
Is there a chance to attach SKIL provisions towards higher degree GC retrogressed applicants to this appropriation efforts?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/313/5789/898
Congress Quietly Tries to Craft Bill To Maintain U.S. Lead in Science
Jeffrey Mervis
In the dog days of August, while most members of Congress are back home campaigning for reelection or on holiday, a small group of staffers is at work in Washington, D.C., on legislation that could influence science spending for years to come. Their goal is to craft a broad bill aimed at bolstering U.S. competitiveness that Congress could pass before the November elections.
They face long odds. The White House has already expressed reservations about some aspects of the legislation, and the congressional calendar is short and already very crowded. Although Senate leaders say they are committed to the goal, House leaders appear less enthusiastic. But a powerful coalition of forces, including business leaders who can bend a member's ear, is keen for Congress to act. "Legislation would show the public that our nation's leaders have a long-range plan of action on U.S. competitiveness," says Susan Traiman of the Business Roundtable, a consortium of 160 CEOs from across U.S. industry.
The legislation draws upon several efforts over the past year examining the status of U.S. science and technology, including the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm report and the National Summit on Competitiveness (Science, 21 October 2005, p. 423; 16 December 2005, p. 1752). In February, the Bush Administration proposed starting a 10-year doubling of basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) core labs (Science, 17 February, p. 929) as part of its 2007 budget request. And the initial funding for what the Administration has dubbed the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) is working its way through the legislative process.
Science advocates can't say enough about the importance of ACI. But they believe even more is needed to improve math and science education and enhance U.S. innovation. Taking their cue from Gathering Storm and other reports, legislators from both parties introduced a fistful of bills earlier this year that would expand existing research and education activities at several agencies and set up new programs (see table).
Unlike annual appropriations bills, which determine how much each federal agency can spend in a given year, these authorization bills set desired funding levels over several years. Although they don't provide the cash, they can build political support for ongoing spending increases. Notes one university lobbyist: "You want Congress on record and the key committees behind an authorization bill, so that they can bail out appropriators when they hit rough seas."
The goal of the quiet negotiations taking place this summer is a single bill. But the calls for increased spending are a sticking point for a Republican Party whose president, George W. Bush, has repeatedly pledged to reduce the federal deficit and whose congressional leaders hope to campaign this fall on their success in shrinking government. Several of the bills also expand NSF's role in science and math education, a position that clashes with the Administration's plans for the Department of Education to lead efforts to improve math and science education and manage all the ACI's education components.
Presidential science adviser Jack Marburger emphasized those points in hard-line letters this spring to the chairs of the committees as they prepared to vote out one of the Senate bills (S. 2802) and two House bills (HR 5356/5358). The Senate measure, Marburger warned Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) on 17 May, "would undermine and delay" ongoing research at the three agencies, "duplicate or complicate existing education and technology programs," and "compete with private investment" in both areas. The House bills, he told Representative Sherry Boehlert (R-NY) on 5 June, "would diminish the impact" of the requested increases for the three ACI agencies.
Boehlert says he was "quite disappointed" by Marburger's letter, noting the president's declaration in his January State of the Union address that the country "must continue to lead the world in human talent and creativity." Boehlert added, "I thought that we had been working with OSTP on these issues," referring to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that Marburger heads.
Three weeks after the House committee passed both bills, �berstaffer Karl Rove, new domestic policy chief Karl Zinsmeister, and a score of high-tech industry and academic lobbyists met at the White House to discuss the pending legislation. Although nothing was resolved--some participants say Rove and Marburger scolded them for supporting the bills, whereas others say there was confusion over the various components--the White House told the lobbyists that its Office of Legislative Affairs, led by Candida Wolff, would be taking the lead in trying to craft an acceptable bill, pushing OSTP to the sidelines. In the Senate, lobbyists are heartened by the willingness of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) to negotiate with the three chairs whose panels must sign off on the legislation--Stevens, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), who leads the Energy and National Resources Committee, and Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY), who heads the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee. Another important player, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), acknowledged when he introduced a trio of bills in January that some of his colleagues "may wince at the price tag" of the legislation. But he cautioned that "maintaining America's brainpower advantage will not come on the cheap."
Although none of the staffers involved would speak on the record, several confirmed that talks are taking place "on a regular basis." They say Frist is determined to cobble together a single bill--with lower authorization levels and fewer new programs than in any of the pending versions--that the Senate could adopt during a 4-week window in September. Prospects in the House are less certain, although Boehlert says, "Hope springs eternal that we'll get an opportunity to go to the floor in September."
Optimists, who hope that all sides will view a competitiveness bill as an asset heading into the November elections, dream of an Administration that accepts a competitiveness bill in return for getting its ACI education programs authorized. Pessimists worry that the House leadership will scuttle the effort by portraying the bills as a vehicle for "wasteful spending" and "a bloated bureaucracy." And although nobody's betting that Congress will act this year, nobody has thrown in the towel.
more...
johnamit
07-27 03:49 PM
So if you run this query: select (current date - 26 days) + 180 days from sysibm.sysdummy1
you will get "12/28/2007"
So lets say Jan 1st to be on safe side, so this new year eve we can celebrate our independence from H1b employer. I marked on my calendar Independence day for me and lot of IV friends.
you will get "12/28/2007"
So lets say Jan 1st to be on safe side, so this new year eve we can celebrate our independence from H1b employer. I marked on my calendar Independence day for me and lot of IV friends.
alterego
08-30 07:05 PM
They will reply to all the SRs and Infopass that the applications are not more than a month outside of normal processing times, so they would not reply. The Processing times were moved to that July 2nd date for a specific reason.
I think that if they have some numbers they might start looking at older RD/PD. Believe it or not, they have many pending 485s with RDs even a lot earlier than July 2007.
Lets hope no numbers are lost. If they accomplish this and clear out all the 2004 PDs and earlier than 2007 July 2nd RD, that would be reasonable.
All that said, I have no trust in their communication or their abilities.
I think that if they have some numbers they might start looking at older RD/PD. Believe it or not, they have many pending 485s with RDs even a lot earlier than July 2007.
Lets hope no numbers are lost. If they accomplish this and clear out all the 2004 PDs and earlier than 2007 July 2nd RD, that would be reasonable.
All that said, I have no trust in their communication or their abilities.
more...
DSLStart
10-24 01:56 PM
My ex roomie came on a B1 visa on one way ticket, that too first time US visit. POE officer did ask him about it and he told employer was going to buy return ticket as dates weren't confirmed. They did made sure that he had a credit card. Don't know if same would apply for B2...
Hi,
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
Hi,
My mother-in-law is coming to US on 2nd Dec on a one-way ticket, she will be going back around March 09 i.e. in almost 4 months.
As we dont know abt the dates as such of return so we have booked a one-way ticket from India to US.
Will there be any problem due to that at port of entry?
Do she also need to carry travel insurance along with her?
Thanks in advance.
arpu31
11-13 07:35 PM
I came to USA in March-2009 on H4 visa, I have H4 visa stamp on my passport valid till 2011 which is my husband�s valid H1 date. Then i applied for H1B through one of consulting companies. I got H1B approval in June-2009. I am searching for the project from June-2009 but, don't have project till date. So now i wanted to change my status again from H1B to H4. I believe my H1B is automatically activated on 1st Oct 2009. I still don�t have any paychecks since I did not get the project and haven�t yet applied for SSN.
So my questions are,
1.Can I apply for visa status change from H1B to H4 in USA or
a. I need to go outside USA and reapply for H4 visa in my home country or
b.just go outside USA and enter back with my current H4 on my passport which is valid until 2011?
2. Is there any alternative that I can apply for status change from H1B to H4 immediately in USA to continue my H4 visa again and can get H4 visa stamp in future when I will go outside USA?
3. Do I need to show paystubs from Oct-2009 while applying for H4 COS in USA while filling the form?
4. Is there a 60 day rule during which I need to apply for my SSN? What would happen if I delay applying for my SSN?
5. Under what scenarios and When would I be considered out of status?
Thank You in advance.
Arpu
So my questions are,
1.Can I apply for visa status change from H1B to H4 in USA or
a. I need to go outside USA and reapply for H4 visa in my home country or
b.just go outside USA and enter back with my current H4 on my passport which is valid until 2011?
2. Is there any alternative that I can apply for status change from H1B to H4 immediately in USA to continue my H4 visa again and can get H4 visa stamp in future when I will go outside USA?
3. Do I need to show paystubs from Oct-2009 while applying for H4 COS in USA while filling the form?
4. Is there a 60 day rule during which I need to apply for my SSN? What would happen if I delay applying for my SSN?
5. Under what scenarios and When would I be considered out of status?
Thank You in advance.
Arpu
more...
Riakapoor
09-16 03:53 PM
Hello All,
I am on a dependent EAD. I lost my job (laid off) few days back. Can I enroll for unemplyment benefits as i am reading the threads that dependents can enroll into UB. But just want to make sure before going forward. We are on I-485 pending status.
Please suggest.
Thanks in Advance!
I am on a dependent EAD. I lost my job (laid off) few days back. Can I enroll for unemplyment benefits as i am reading the threads that dependents can enroll into UB. But just want to make sure before going forward. We are on I-485 pending status.
Please suggest.
Thanks in Advance!
kevinkris
02-18 02:42 PM
Is it something like appeal for a denial?
more...
ita
01-16 12:05 PM
While on EAD-AC21 do you know if they compare the salary mentioned on offer letter or the acual W2 amount or is it both to check if it is close to what is mentioned on LC?
Because the salary on offer letter could be like $15K-$20K/$20K-$30K more than what is mentioned on LC but
If the W2 reflects not so much difference(like you go on unpaid vacations if possible) then will this be OK?
Appreciate your advice on this
Man how many things we have to watch before we do this AC21.I think sometimes I'm thinking/planning too much rather than just taking the jump.
Thank you.
Because the salary on offer letter could be like $15K-$20K/$20K-$30K more than what is mentioned on LC but
If the W2 reflects not so much difference(like you go on unpaid vacations if possible) then will this be OK?
Appreciate your advice on this
Man how many things we have to watch before we do this AC21.I think sometimes I'm thinking/planning too much rather than just taking the jump.
Thank you.
aaaa4321
08-31 03:02 PM
Thanks to all of you for explaining the real thing.
more...
webm
01-23 10:19 AM
Sounds great..esp TSC dates.
zerozerozeven
07-24 09:19 AM
I got my H1B visa inside the US and when I went to the consulate, the lady refused to stamp my visa. I had to go to the passport office and get an "observation" that my name should be read as
First Name : "FirstName"
Last Name : "LastName"
First Name : "FirstName"
Last Name : "LastName"
more...
hi2sunil
12-06 11:34 AM
When you mail the documents, make sure you notarized the application. If you have not done it will come back to you.
Thanks
Sunil K
Thanks
Sunil K
bhavana
05-24 07:51 AM
Good job Buddy
more...
Ramba
09-03 04:48 PM
You have two options. One is forget the current GC and take new job re-start your GC.
The second option is keep a copy of your I 140 approval. Join a new company. Re-Start the GC application. When the new labor is approved and lawyer is ready to ship the I 140 package to USCIS ask him to include the copy of Old I 140 approval notice in it with a cover letter to USCIS requesting porting the old priority date to your new application. ( I am not sure of job description in the 2 labors needs to be same/ similar for portablity. My guess is that it does not need to be strictly same but least in same field. Example IT to IT and not say IT to Finance or Healthcare etc)
The best bet is to take an appointment with a lawyer and go over it. Also talk to new companys immigration attorney if he will support this porting when the time comes.
Wrong information. In order to retain the PD from old 140 when filing new 140, the both jobs need not be in same/similar field. You are confused with AC21 job change. The first 140 job can be a "cook" in eb3, and the new 140 job can be "rocket scientist" in eb1.
The second option is keep a copy of your I 140 approval. Join a new company. Re-Start the GC application. When the new labor is approved and lawyer is ready to ship the I 140 package to USCIS ask him to include the copy of Old I 140 approval notice in it with a cover letter to USCIS requesting porting the old priority date to your new application. ( I am not sure of job description in the 2 labors needs to be same/ similar for portablity. My guess is that it does not need to be strictly same but least in same field. Example IT to IT and not say IT to Finance or Healthcare etc)
The best bet is to take an appointment with a lawyer and go over it. Also talk to new companys immigration attorney if he will support this porting when the time comes.
Wrong information. In order to retain the PD from old 140 when filing new 140, the both jobs need not be in same/similar field. You are confused with AC21 job change. The first 140 job can be a "cook" in eb3, and the new 140 job can be "rocket scientist" in eb1.
Queen Josephine
April 5th, 2005, 02:10 PM
OK, following Gary's lead, I tried a facelift also. It was a slow day at work so I had lots of time to play with this. Adobe Photoshop Rescue.... :) A little sloppy in one spot that I can see, but hey, it wasn't for real!
Better_Days
11-03 07:13 PM
Thats the concern. CIR pits illegals vs legals. The CIR bill allocates quotas from legals to illegals.
Depends on how the CIR is crafted. To bring the republicans on board, it may have biz friendly provisions and hence may be beneficial for us all.
Last time there was a point based system which was meant to replace the Employment based system; big biz hated that idea. They might introduce a point based system in addition to the employment based stream. It would be specially great if it has its own quota. Every US PhD and Master degree holder that gets into the point based system, frees us visa for others. We may be relief in form of permanent number capture: numbers wasted are automatically rolled over to next year.
Bottom line is that we cannot be absolutely sure that any CIR will result in a net loss to EB green card aspirants. On the other hand, at my age, you come to realize that the devil you know, is indeed often better than the devil that you dont know.
Depends on how the CIR is crafted. To bring the republicans on board, it may have biz friendly provisions and hence may be beneficial for us all.
Last time there was a point based system which was meant to replace the Employment based system; big biz hated that idea. They might introduce a point based system in addition to the employment based stream. It would be specially great if it has its own quota. Every US PhD and Master degree holder that gets into the point based system, frees us visa for others. We may be relief in form of permanent number capture: numbers wasted are automatically rolled over to next year.
Bottom line is that we cannot be absolutely sure that any CIR will result in a net loss to EB green card aspirants. On the other hand, at my age, you come to realize that the devil you know, is indeed often better than the devil that you dont know.
jaggu bhai
08-10 09:18 AM
We did the COS from H4 (stamped) to F1 for my wife ourselves. It was easy, no lawyer but we got an RFE on the dollar amount so we replied again ourselves (giving an excel sheet etc). You can do it yourself.
frostrated & smuggymba
Thanks for ur replies....
As I am EB3 - MAY 2009....No question of I 485 soon....
thats the reason for the F1....
U said to show the intent that we leave US back....but my I 140 is approved which makes the letter of intent very contradictory (unless they dont see my papers when processing my wife's F1).
And also, see the pattern She was on B1 - H4 - F1 (all COS), this is the main concern.
Whether is the letter of intent makes them believable!!!
Regarding funds availability, We have funds equivalent to 80% of 1st year fee (which shown on I 20), AND ALSO I AM SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT THAT I AM SPONSORING MY WIFE.
Frostrated: College is only giving I 20 rest of the things we have to do ourselves.
frostrated & smuggymba
Thanks for ur replies....
As I am EB3 - MAY 2009....No question of I 485 soon....
thats the reason for the F1....
U said to show the intent that we leave US back....but my I 140 is approved which makes the letter of intent very contradictory (unless they dont see my papers when processing my wife's F1).
And also, see the pattern She was on B1 - H4 - F1 (all COS), this is the main concern.
Whether is the letter of intent makes them believable!!!
Regarding funds availability, We have funds equivalent to 80% of 1st year fee (which shown on I 20), AND ALSO I AM SUBMITTING AN AFFIDAVIT THAT I AM SPONSORING MY WIFE.
Frostrated: College is only giving I 20 rest of the things we have to do ourselves.
ivgclive
03-22 09:10 AM
And u can get your GC by him sponsoring for you as parents in just 15-16 years from now.
That will be faster than this EB2 and EB3 backlogs.
You help him now, and he will help you.
Much better.
Added advantage. When they file green card, you don't have to be in "JOB", you can retire and go back to India. When things are ready, get your flight back.
:D
That will be faster than this EB2 and EB3 backlogs.
You help him now, and he will help you.
Much better.
Added advantage. When they file green card, you don't have to be in "JOB", you can retire and go back to India. When things are ready, get your flight back.
:D